CosmicBills

Not a bad guess. I'd buy it. I want either Sophie or Ozzy to win personally. Anyone but Brandon.

Albert missed a golden opportunity at tribal. He should have pinned Coach down when given the chance to return the necklace once it became apparent Brandon was doomed. Instead of just saying "I'm confident Brandon's staying..." He should have looked Coach dead in the eye and said something to the effect: "I know Brandon is safe because I'm voting Sophie, Brandon can't vote for himself, and I don't think Coach would betray Brandon and vote him off. Coach, do I need to give Brandon his necklace back?" If he had put Coach on the spot, he would have crumbled, waffled and looked like an ass to Brandon and the jury. If he said he's voting Brandon, then Albert gives the necklace back, win jury votes and beat Ozzie in one challenge. 'Cause either way, he has to win one more challenge (if not 2) to be in the finals since he's clearly the marked man in camp thanks to Sophie's move. Instead, Coach was able to fall back on his whole bs God's Will bs which keeps him consistent in the eyes of the jury (though they still won't vote for him) and probably wins him Brandon's vote in the end. Albert really should have pushed all in. He has nothing to lose now that Sophie so acutely destroyed his social game at camp. But he didn't, he played scared. And now he's got no chance of winning. Neither does Rick who's worthless but guaranteed a seat in the final 3. So this game is clearly (and sadly) Coach or Ozzy's to lose. Sophie is a dark horse as she's clearly the brightest bulb left. I hope she wins, but I'm thinking this is set up to be a Coach vs Ozzy showdown and my money in that scenario would be Ozzy. Just my two cents.

Where's Leo when you need him ...

Horrible decision to throw that ball. And a horrible throw to go along with it.

We agree more than we disagree about this team. But there is no such thing as "false hope". Hope, in all forms, is still hope.

Ha! Yeah, it might be too vague to really work. But it was worth a shot. Basically it's like this. Let's say you were hired to write the next James Bond movie (I wasn't for the record ... dammit). But Daniel Craig isn't gonna be in it. So you get to do the introduction movie for the next Bond. Pretty cool. But when you're getting started thinking about the movie you're gonna write, it's a vastly different movie if you picture Tom Hanks as the next Bond rather than say Matt Damon. Both are random choices, but if you were forced to build a movie around those actors, you could see how it would play out (kinda, at least in tone). So in this case, I have a story but I've only been thinking about it as being played by specific actors (Ed Harris and Sam Rockwell/Ed Helms). Just imagining Ed Harris on screen with Ed Helms and you get a sense of what that would be like (probably really awkward in a funny way). It would be different if it was Clint Eastwood and Sam Rockwell. Again, I'm rambling, but thinking about stuff like that kinda helps open my brain up sometimes. And in this case I figured if I gave a little character brief people would think of actors they'd cast for the roles (and probably suggest people I wouldn't think of thus opening it up a bit for me). In short, I'm being lazy This is pretty good!

Doing some brainstorming (or at this rate, some brain-not-working ... see? can't even write a good opening joke) and I figured I'd throw this against the stadium wall to see what happens. Without boring you with the details (because they are boring) -- I'm trying to crack a story, and being the lazy bastard that I am, I often try to cast the story first with actors/actresses to get the ball rolling in terms of character/plot yada yada. Right now, I have two parts I'm trying to figure out. One is an Ed Harris type. He's the muscle -- but someone we instantly look at and go "I don't wanna !@#$ with that guy" but yet he's a bit past his prime. He needs to be a real presence. Clint Eastwood would be another example of the sort of actor I'm looking for. The other character probably has more possibilities, but right now the second guy is an academic who's also sometimes on TV (think of the guys you see on National Geographic/History Channel on the regular). My first thought is Sam Rockwell (he can play freaky or funny or serious). But I'm sure there are others ... I know this is random and very vague but I thought some on here would find it fun and have some awesome ideas I'm overlooking that would break my funk. (You can throw actresses into either role as well ... I think)

This is my favorite response of the week!

I meant Johnston more than Jackson. (But neither one directed District 9) Johnston is a Spielberg protege but he over does the schmaltz even more than his mentor. Where as JJ was (obviously) inspired greatly by Spielberg but he brings his own instincts and sensibilities to his stuff. Johnston is very mechanical with extra dollops of sugar thrown in when he doesn't know what's missing. I dug Captain America, I was really impressed. But it played to his strength (old fashion stories told in an old fashioned setting). The Rocketeer and Jumanji (in its way) worked on the same principle. His films in a modern setting: JP3, Honey I Shrunk the Kids both = . If you gave him the keys to the Transformers kingdom people would be wishing for Michael Bay.

:unsure: Really? Why?

Me too!

Just got back from The Descendents ... it's brilliant.

Thanks for the find, Joe! I'd never heard of them before, but dig this song (and the album now that I got it).

Okay, this is something that really gets under my skin. Rocky is a brilliant movie. The sequels that came after it became a cartoon. But the original movie was brilliant. It was brilliantly acted by Burgess Meredith, Burt Young, Stalone, even Weathers. It beat Taxi Driver for best picture for a reason (and Taxi Driver is a brilliant movie as well -- and MS's sting over not winning best picture may have influenced his take on Raging Bull). There's nothing better than the scene where Mick has to walk up the steps of Rocky's apartment to beg him for a second chance. That entire sequence is one of the best moments of writing and acting in cinematic history. Stalone has never been (nor ever will be) better than he is in that one scene. Ditto with Meredith. Rocky isn't a sports classic. It's a cinematic masterpiece. Everything from the amazing score, to the editing to the production design. Without Rocky, The Fighter doesn't get made. Without Rocky, Raging Bull doesn't get made without Rocky either. Yes, it was made in 1976 -- before you were born (and before I was born). It was a different style, a different time in terms of how movies were paced, made and viewed. It's slow by today's standards. But it's just as powerful. It will forever be remembered -- more than Raging Bull, more than The Fighter, more than the dozens of copycat rip offs that come after it. Rocky was lightning in a bottle. Any top 5 sports movie list that does not include Rocky is not really a list at all ... /rant

I need to hire you as my agent. I'm still catching up with the show now that my other project has wrapped. I'm hoping watching them in marathon sessions will help push me through some of the rough patches in Season 2. I hope?

If a QB is there who you feel is an upgrade (now or in the future) to Fitz, you take him. If it's in Round 1 or Round 7. This team has no backup QB and Fitz's deal makes him expendable after next season. QB is the single most important position in the game. If one's there, you take him. But there's no need to reach for one.

You said you weren't going to use revisionist history ... Saying neither Jackson or Lynch hadn't done anything to look like the answer before the Spiller pick is revisionist history. They both had already shown a ton (some of course expected more or disliked them personally) ... There is never a reason to take a RB in the top ten in today's NFL. Certainly not when you already have two 1000k yard rushers on the roster. It's an old school mentality. And it's flat out wrong.

Thanks again for this continually awesome thread, Mark! I understand the sentiment here -- more than you probably will ever know -- but I think you're being a bit short sighted. There have been some excellent movies this year, summer included. Crazy, Stupid Love was brilliant and not just noise. Drive was an arty action flick that Hollywood doesn't make much any more, Harry Potter was tremendous as was First Class and (surprisingly) Apes. ABSOLUTELY! I'm really fired up for this one. Love Payne. Okay, full disclosure. I did not discover these flicks until 2 was already on DVD. But they are a huge guilty pleasure for me. Cho and Pen are hilarious -- and while the movie is inane and silly -- I find myself laughing my ass off. Of course ... it could be my state at the given time. But that's neither here nor there If you dug 1 or 2, 3 is HIlarious. I hear ya here too. I have a theory, but it's uber nerdy. So apologies up front. (Big assumption here) My guess is that your tastes have not shifted as you've gotten older -- if you enjoyed a good popcorn flick when you were younger, I'm sure you would now. But because the studio fare these days have become so predictable, the newer popcorn flicks that you might have liked in your teens or 20s no longer hold your interest. You know before you go into the theater that Captain America is going to win, Batman is going to win, the guy they set up in the first 3 minutes of the movie is going to come back and save the day at the end ... all of that. I don't think this happens just because you've gotten older, but because you've had more experience with visual storytelling. You can see all the strings and know when they're being pulled. It's almost like the studios aren't letting you be surprised anymore. You see the entire movie in the trailers so you know what you're getting going into a flick. Remember the trailer for Raiders? The first one? (Full disclosure: I don't ... I wasn't around for it). The only trailer they released was a 2 minute thing that all took place in South America: the giant boulder, him running, him being chased by the natives, the snake in the plane (not Sam Jackson). NOTHING else was shown in that original trailer. So when you sat down in the theater and that opening sequence ended, you were like "whoooaaaa, there is 2 hours left and I have no idea what's coming!" You don't get that feeling any more. Unless you go out of your way to avoid trailers, spoilers and reviews. Now, studios want everyone to know everything about the movie before they go in because they think it manages audiences' expectations. They want to spoon feed the audience so they don't get lost, confused, and know what's going on every step of the way. Maybe this has always been the case and I'm too young to remember. Maybe that's why parents in the 70s didn't have the reaction to Star Wars that their children did. But today the world is different. Today, the kids (and by kids I mean 10 to 16 year olds) who make up the largest market for these summer movies, have all seen SO many movies, shows and online videos they are more versed in visual storytelling than any other generation. The studios aren't recognizing this. Studio movies, especially tentpole/franchise flicks, are always made by committee. When a film's budget exceeds 200 million before a single set is even built, there's just too much risk for the corporations behind the studios (the Viacoms, the Sonys etc) for them not to become actively involved. They aren't really trying to hurt the project, in their mind they are trying to make it as accessible as possible for the audiences ... which means over-explaining. But they're forgetting that they're not only competing against Twilight (or whichever movie is currently in first place at the box office) but they're also competing against every movie and every episode of TV ever made thanks to streaming movies. The studio response has been to play it safe -- guarantee a good return by not changing the standard formulas. This = boredom for most of the audiences. The rare exceptions to this are when someone like Nolan (a name they know they can sell on a poster) is attached. Someone with the power to say "no, trust me, I know what I'm doing" ... there are very few big budget filmmakers (and even less writers) that have that kind of clout when it comes to big budget movies. Okay ... not sure where I was going with this rant. But I think I put everyone to sleep. So mission accomplished!

It's tempting to lump them together because of the supernatural nature of the stories. But Twilight (the books) are just trashy romance novels (nothing wrong with that) whereas the Potter books are going to be read by kids for the next 100 years easy. It's night and day the difference between these two book series AND films. What they did with the movies is absolutely incredible. A bigger accomplishment than Lord of the Rings in terms of scope and depth. But that's me

One of the most surprising movie-going experiences I've had in 2011 was going to see Bridesmaids on a date and the woman I was with hated it!

Yeah but that doesn't mean what you think it means.

I need to spend more time on the PPP board I guess. I'm learning so much about posters that I thought I knew!

It sounds like there is a lot of serious beef over there in the PPP terror-dome.

I agree with you about the last two weeks, Clip. They've been pretty entertaining .

Damn. Only 44. RIP